Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrankTrollman" data-source="post: 1143711" data-attributes="member: 14225">And from Sword and Fist, and the DMG. And of course, they stack - which is to say that the more "official" Fighter Variant classes get printed, the more times you can take the first two levels of the Fighter Class. There are currently more than 10 such variants printed.So, if we accept that the first two levels of Fighter are not unbalanced - and all of your levels out to twenty can be the first two levels of Fighter (which they can) - how can we possibly say that the levels after the first two should give less than the first two.One feat per level is the minimum acceptable Fighter - because you can just multiclass with Fighter and do that anyway.---Now it is an entirely seperate problem that I simply completely reject the notion that Fighters are any better at Fighting than Rangers are - they don't get more feats at the crucial lower levels and have less combat skills and worse saves. A character with maxxed Spot is more likely to be able to act in the surprise round, a character with maxxed Move Silently is more likely to prevent opponents from acting in the surprise round. Add those together, and the Ranger's Skills will often represent a shift of two whole rounds worth of actions. In a game where combats rarely last more than six rounds total - that's a huge hole that a Fighter is having to dig himslf out of. And as previously noted, the Fighter does not have more feats than the Ranger at low levels (and at higher levels, there are PrCs and Animal Companions and stuff making comparison extremely difficult).So we look at someone who is not better at "Fighting" and is worse at other activities. That's not balanced. Heck, even at one feat per level, I'm not seeing a significant bulge of Fighters over Rangers in combat (especially if the Ranger gets a Favored Enemy which is common in his campaign). And the non-combat functionality differential is huge.----Now: as to the different number of rolls of Attack vs. Diplomacy - that's irrelevent. In a combat, you roll a bunch of attack rolls - but succeeding or failing at an individual attack doesn't make you win or lose the combat. You need to succeed many times on attack rolls before you make any meaningful difference.OTOH, a Diplomacy roll is all-or-nothing. Success on that one roll is a bigger deal. It makes you "win" the encounter. Failure makes you "lose". That's a big deal. Much bigger than a single attack roll. The net result of +1 to all of your attacks is thus about the same as +1 to all of your diplomacy rolls - more rolls with a smaller individual effect makes each +1 bonus statistically more similar - but doesn't actually make that bonus any statistically larger.On a 1000 attack rolls, you are very likely to see about 50 additional hits with a +1 attack bonus. On 100 Diplomacy Rolls you are going to see a spread of between about 2 and about 10 additional successes with a +1 to Diplomacy checks. But hitting 50 extra times isn't a bigger deal than succeeding at 5 more Diplomacy checks.-Frank</blockquote>

Verification